Columnist Kingsley Guy, of the Florida Sun-Sentinel, recently proposed eliminating “Byzantine (campaign) finance laws,” in favor of limitless contributions with timely public reporting.
Guy is correct, and the Supreme Court seems to agree.
Campaign laws are designed to benefit incumbents and those who favor a powerful central government. History shows the laws inhibit non-wealthy candidates.
Guy noted that Reubin Askew withdrew from a Senate race because of onerous fundraising responsibilities. Today, congressmen often have to raise millions, while federal laws drastically limit individual contributions.
Candidates can only receive $2600 from individuals, but may need to raise more than $5 million. This means at least 2000 donors — IF they all give the maximum. This requires the candidate to make endless calls instead of focusing on legislative business.
Current laws provide no benefit to the voter. Major races list thousands of contributors. The general public almost never requests those public records. They are mostly accessed by opposition candidates and media — both looking only for large donations from questionable characters. Recording small contributions in a major campaign is valueless – even intimidating.
More ominously, lists are used by officeholders to see who donates to opponents — information used to demand similar donations or to punish such donors.
Politicians use lists to intimidate job seekers or contractors who might donate to an opponent. Many prospective candidates have heard, “I would donate, but I can’t risk being on your contribution list.”
Though often illegal, professional fundraisers routinely use the lists to find prospects.
Most evidence suggests that voters do not care how much a candidate spends as long as the money is legal and reported. Liberals do not trust you, however. They do not wish to make you an informed voter, but a controlled voter.
The PPC proposes a system hereby people runner for a community office might publish donations over $100. Someone running for governor or senator might list contributions over $5000. It would then be up to voters to decide what they think about specific contributions.
In a free society, elections should be decided by an informed voter. Not buy a rigged system.
On The Starboard 